The Birds (1963)

In this article, we will be looking at 2019’s book “1001 Movies to See Before You Die” and going through each film in a random order that I have chosen. We will be looking at what constitutes this film to be on the list and whether I think this film deserves to be here at all. I want to make perfectly clear that I won’t be revealing details from this book such as analyses by film reporters who have written about the film in question, so if you want the book itself you’ll have to buy it. But I will be covering the book’s suggestions on which films should be your top priority. I wouldn’t doubt for a second that everyone reading this article has probably watched many of these movies anyway. But we are just here to have a bit of fun. We’re going to not just look at whether it should be on this list but we’re also going to look at why the film has such a legacy at all. Remember, this is the 2019 version of the book and so, films like “Joker” will not be featured in this book and any film that came out in 2020 (and if we get there, in 2021). So strap in and if you have your own suggestions then don’t hesitate to email me using the address in my bio. Let’s get on with it then.

The Birds (1963) dir. by Sir Alfred Hitchcock

This film premiered in New York City as the Museum of Modern Art hosted an invitation-only screening on the 28th of March of 1963 which was then followed by a screening at the Cannes Film Festival of that year and Tippi Hedren was in the audience as well. Tippi Hedren also took a copy of the film with her when visiting her hometown of Minneapolis, Minnesota and premiered it to about one-hundred or so people of Lafayette.

Bosley Crowther weighed in on the film and stated the following about it: “[it is] a horror film that should raise the hackles on the most courageous and put goose-pimples on the toughest hide.”

Stanley Kauffmann though, was not too excited about it, saying it was: 'the worst thriller of his (Hitchcock's) that I can remember’.

But Philip K Schueur went the extra mile and ended up just sounding like an angry toddler when he stated in the Los Angeles Times the Sir Alfred Hitchcock:

"...was once widely quoted as saying he hated actors. After his 1960 'Psycho' and now 'The Birds,' it must be fairly obvious that he has extended his abhorrence to the whole human race. For reasons hardly justified either dramatically or aesthetically, the old master has become a master of the perverse. He has gone all out for shock for shock's sake, and it is too bad.”

However, on Rotten Tomatoes, the judgement seems to slightly disagree with some of the critics with it having a 96% rating and the critics’ consensus reading: "Proving once again that build-up is the key to suspense, Hitchcock successfully turned birds into some of the most terrifying villains in horror history.” And then the American Film Institute put it in the seventh greatest thriller in American Cinematic History.

So whilst Brendan Gill of the New Yorker stated this:

"a sorry failure. Hard as it may be to believe of Hitchcock, it doesn't arouse suspense, which is, of course, what justifies and transforms the sadism that lies at the heart of every thriller. Here the sadism is all too nakedly, repellently present…”

I can honestly say that “The Birds” is universally acknowledged otherwise as a great film. I’m not going to lie, it is not perfect - but really I can say that there is massive redeeming qualities of this film. The editing is brilliant, the way in which the costume, make-up and design is brilliant. The scene in which we see the dead guy with his eyeballs missing is one of my favourite scenes in any Hitchcock film because it is just brilliantly made for the time. Many people love this film so Brendan Gill, do not even go there. Even though it isn’t the best Hitchcock film, it is definitely up there.